Patent Cases

13,576 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 2,847 European UPC 2,007 US PTAB 8,722

Page 65 of 453

patent pending · Aug 20, 2025

Officine Maccaferri S. P. A. v.Techfab India Industries Limited

The plaintiffs filed an application seeking an injunction and account of profits against the defendant alleging patent infringement. The court also addressed applications regarding exemption from pre-institution mediation and condonation of delay in filing replies.

patent interim order · Aug 20, 2025

Bisleri International Private Limited v.Bisheshwar Mahto

Bombay High Court · 115088500

The petitioner, Bisleri International Private Limited, sought interim relief against the respondent for infringing its trademarks and copyrights concerning packaged drinking water. The court granted ad-interim injunctions restraining the defendant from using deceptively similar marks and artwork, and also allowed leave to combine the passing off claim with the infringement suit.

patent pending · Aug 20, 2025

Bisleri International Private Limited v.Priti Rajawat, Sole Proprietor Of M/S ...

Bombay High Court · 19716379

Bisleri International Private Limited filed an Interim Application seeking further ad-interim relief against Priti Rajawat for alleged infringement of its trademarks (BRISLERI), copyright in its label/packaging, and design/shape. The court noted that previous interim orders were granted but had not been served on the Defendants. Consequently, the court ordered service of the relevant order before hearing and disposing of the current application.

patent interim order · Aug 20, 2025

Bisleri International Private Limited v.Bisheshwar Mahto

Bombay High Court · 33700321

The plaintiff, Bisleri International Private Limited, filed an interim application seeking injunctions against the defendant for infringing its trade marks (BISLERI) and copyrights. The court granted ad-interim relief restraining the defendant from using similar marks, artwork, and designs on packaged drinking water products.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 19, 2025

Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. and Others

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000436

Procedural order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) concerning a deadline extension request in an infringement action involving European Patent EP1969839. The claimant Adeia Guides Inc. sought an extension due to late filing of exhibits 8 and 9 on 5 August 2025, to which the Walt Disney defendants did not object provided their subsequent deadlines were not shortened.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 19, 2025

Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc. v.ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUS France S.a.r.l., ASUSTeK Italy S.r.l., ASUS Europe B.V., Ninepoint GmbH

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000435

This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 3 849 157, in which Defendants 2 to 6 (ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUS France S.a.r.l., ASUSTeK Italy S.r.l., ASUS Europe B.V., and Ninepoint GmbH) requested an extension of the time period for filing their statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation. The court granted a partial extension of approximately one week, extending the deadline to 30 September 2025, finding that the delayed access to the unredacted version of exhibit BB1 (an agreement between the Claimant and its co-owner) warranted only a limited extension since the relevant assertions were already contained in the unredacted statement of claim.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 19, 2025

OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV v.[Defendant]

Brussels (BE) Local Division · UPC-000434

This is a definitive correction order issued by the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court on August 19, 2025, correcting a cost order (Kostenbeslissing) issued on July 25, 2025. The correction addressed a calculation error in paragraph 46 of the cost order, which had omitted the expert costs of VASQUEZ (€2,200) awarded under paragraph 36, resulting in a corrected total of €43,856.64. The court also clarified that the correction order does not suspend or affect the appeal time limits under R. 221(1) RoP.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 19, 2025

Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. v.Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co., Ltd., Shanghai Youcheng International Trade Co., Ltd., Hubei Fluorine New Materials Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Benia New Material Technology Co., Ltd.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000433

Procedural order of the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the separation of infringement proceedings. The court ordered the separation of proceedings against Defendants 1 and 2 from those against Defendants 3 and 4, as service had been effected on Defendants 1 and 2 but not yet on Defendants 3 and 4, making it unreasonable to delay the proceedings against the served defendants.

patent denied · Aug 19, 2025

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01334

Google’s petition to invalidate Dialect’s speech‑interface patent was denied. The Board concluded the petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of success on any of the asserted obviousness grounds.

patent terminated or settled · Aug 19, 2025

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01334

Meta Platforms and Dialect have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,398,209. The parties filed a joint motion to stay all deadlines while they finalize the settlement and prepare dismissal filings.

patent · Aug 19, 2025

Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-01443

Voltage, LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Shoals Technologies’ U.S. Patent 12,015,375 covering photovoltaic lead assemblies. The petition alleges obviousness over Machida and combinations with Solon and Kim, and asks the Board to adopt ITC claim constructions.

patent · Aug 19, 2025

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01334

Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1,4,6‑9 of U.S. Patent 7,398,209, alleging obviousness over multiple speech‑recognition and natural‑language prior arts. The petition lists five grounds invoking 35 U.S.C. § 103.

patent interim order · Aug 19, 2025

Caterpillar Inc. v.Zhejiang Santian Oil Filter Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 62827846

Caterpillar Inc. filed a suit against Zhejiang Santian Oil Filter Co. Ltd. alleging infringement of its patented and designed fluid filter systems used in construction and mining machinery. The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to restrain the Defendants from infringing these rights. Furthermore, the court permitted the appointment of Local Commissioners to inspect premises, seize infringing goods, and take samples for analysis.

patent pending · Aug 19, 2025

Communication Components Antenna Inc v.Ace Technologies Corp. And Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 31264189

The defendants filed an application seeking the appointment of a scientific expert to determine their alleged infringement of the suit patent. The plaintiff objected, stating that the application was filed after evidence had concluded and the matter was nearing final arguments.

patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 19, 2025

YC Electric Vehicle v.Nipun Sanyantra Private Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 26434263

The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of YC Electric Vehicle against Nipun Sanyantra Private Limited. The court recognized that the Plaintiff holds rights over its trademarks ('YATRI', 'YC'), copyrights, and design registrations related to electric vehicles. Consequently, the Defendant was restrained from using any deceptively similar marks for manufacturing or selling e-rickshaws and was directed to immediately take down all infringing product listings from social media platforms.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 18, 2025

Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna Group Entities (UPC_CFI_191/2025 and UPC_CFI_192/2025)

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000438

This procedural order of the Local Division The Hague concerns a Rule 333 review of a Judge Rapporteur's order on preliminary objections raised by 15 Moderna entities in two infringement actions brought by Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation concerning European patents EP 2 279 254 and EP 4 241 767. Moderna had challenged the court's international jurisdiction, local jurisdiction, and long-arm jurisdiction over various defendants. The full panel confirmed the Judge Rapporteur's order and dismissed Moderna's request for interim appeal.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 18, 2025

Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and Others v.Innovative Sonic Corporation (Application No. APP_33670/2025)

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000437

The defendants in a patent infringement action before the Munich Local Division of the UPC applied under R. 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent EP2765731 was granted. The claimant, Innovative Sonic Corporation, opposed the change. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, ordering that the language of proceedings be changed to English, and dismissed the claimant's alternative request for oral hearings to be held in German.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 15, 2025

AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Troy Chemical Company B.V. et al.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000444

This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP3286270, owned by AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. The parties mutually requested a stay of the proceedings until 13 February 2026, which the court granted pursuant to Rule 295(d) RoP. The claimant was ordered to inform the court within one week after 13 February whether the case is withdrawn or will resume.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 15, 2025

Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), and Kinexon GmbH

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000443

Ballinno B.V. had been ordered by the Court of Appeal to provide security of €25,000 for the legal costs of the Kinexon companies and UEFA in appeal proceedings concerning EP 1 944 067. After the appeal was adjudicated and the parties entered into a settlement agreement, Kinexon requested release of the security and transfer to its bank account, with consent from both Ballinno and UEFA. The Court of Appeal ordered the release and full transfer of the €25,000 deposit to Kinexon Sports GmbH.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 15, 2025

Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000442

Sun Patent Trust applied for suspensive effect of orders issued by the Paris Local Division concerning access restrictions to confidential information in two infringement actions against Vivo entities, without having yet lodged an appeal. The Court of Appeal held the applications inadmissible, ruling that suspensive effect cannot be sought before an appeal is lodged, and that even under the extreme urgency provision (R. 223.4 RoP), a Statement of appeal and payment of the appeal fee are prerequisites.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 15, 2025

HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000441

Procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action related to European Patent EP2432351 owned by HL Display AB against Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. The order addressed several procedural matters including the appointment of a technical judge, use of visual aids, rescheduling of the oral hearing, and setting the value of the dispute at EUR 500,000 for both the claim and counterclaim.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 15, 2025

RiVOLUTiON GmbH v.Cilag GmbH International

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000440

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed RiVOLUTiON GmbH's application for suspensive effect (stay) of a first-instance preliminary injunction order. The Local Chamber Munich had ordered RiVOLUTiON to cease offering and selling surgical instruments infringing claim 1 of EP 2 515 768 in Germany, with a penalty payment for non-compliance and a cost reimbursement of €64,000 to Cilag. The Court of Appeal held that evident errors in the first-instance order could not be established without the reasoning being available, and that the balancing of interests did not justify a stay.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 15, 2025

Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000439

Sun Patent Trust applied for suspensive effect of orders issued by the Paris Local Division concerning restrictions on access to confidential information in two infringement actions against Vivo entities. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications as inadmissible because Sun had not yet lodged a Statement of appeal or paid the appeal fee, which are prerequisites for applying for suspensive effect even in cases of extreme urgency.

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Aug 15, 2025

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

· IPR2025-01435

The PTAB held that most of Guardant Health’s ’822 patent claims are obvious over prior‑art sequencing methods, cancelling claims 1‑11, 13, and 17‑20, while claim 12 remains patentable.

patent · Aug 15, 2025

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

· IPR2025-01435

Tempus AI challenges Guardant Health’s 10,287,631 sequencing patent, arguing all 23 claims are obvious over Kinde, Craig, and Travers publications, and that no FINTIV issues exist.

patent all challenged claims upheld · Aug 15, 2025

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

· IPR2025-01435

The PTAB affirmed Guardant Health’s patent on cfDNA tagging methods, finding none of the 29 challenged claims unpatentable after rejecting Tempus AI’s obviousness arguments.

patent · Aug 15, 2025

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

· IPR2025-01435

Tempus AI seeks to invalidate all 30 claims of Guardant Health’s DNA‑sequencing patent, arguing they are obvious over Kinde, Craig, and NEB Expressions. The petition asserts no claim construction is needed and that discretionary denial is inappropriate.

patent · Aug 15, 2025

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

· IPR2025-01435

Tempus AI petitions to invalidate Guardant Health’s ’699 patent, asserting that all 27 claims are obvious over Kinde and Miner. The petition emphasizes claim constructions that broaden the scope to circulating cellular DNA and argues discretionary denial is improper.

patent · Aug 15, 2025

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

· IPR2025-01435

Guardant Health petitions the PTAB to invalidate Foundation Medicine’s 9,340,830 cancer‑diagnostic patent, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over prior‑art methods for targeted enrichment and next‑generation sequencing.

patent all challenged claims upheld · Aug 15, 2025

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

· IPR2025-01434

The PTAB affirmed Guardant Health's U.S. Patent 11,149,306 covering cell‑free DNA tagging and counting, finding none of the 29 challenged claims unpatentable after Tempus AI's IPR challenge.

1 •••64 65 66•••453

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →